ABSTRACT
Background: Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) remains a life-threatening complication after cardiac surgery. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents the mainstay of mechanical circulatory support for PCCS; however, its availability is limited to larger experienced centers, leading to a mismatch between centers performing cardiac surgery and hospitals offering ECMO management beyond cannulation. We sought to evaluate the outcomes and complications of PCCS patients requiring veno-arterial (V-A) ECMO cannulated at our hospital compared to those cannulated at referral hospitals. Methods: A retrospective analysis of PCCS patients requiring V-A ECMO was conducted between October 2014 to December 2022. Results: A total of 121 PCCS patients required V-A ECMO support, of which 62 (51%) patients were cannulated at the referring institutions and retrieved (retrieved group), and 59 (49%) were cannulated at our hospital (on-site group). The baseline demographics and pre-ECMO variables were similar between groups, except retrieved patients had higher lactic acid levels (retrieved group: 8.5 mmol/L ± 5.8 vs. on-site group: 6.6 ± 5; p = 0.04). Coronary artery bypass graft was the most common surgical intervention (51% in the retrieved group vs. 47% in the on-site group). There was no difference in survival-to-discharge rates between the groups (45% in the retrieved group vs. 51% in the on-site group; p = 0.53) or in the rate of patient-related complications. Conclusions: PCCS patients retrieved on V-A ECMO can achieve similar outcomes as those cannulated at experienced centers. An established network in a hub-and-spoke model is critical for the PCCS patients managed at hospitals without ECMO abilities to improve outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Most extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulations are performed by cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS). Due to an increase in utilization of ECMO and limited availability of CTS, there is a mismatch between ECMO demand and CTS accessibility for remote cannulations. We report our intensivist-led program's experience in remote ECMO cannulations, retrievals, complications, and outcomes. Materials and methods: A prospective, single-center, observational study was performed on patients that required ECMO cannulation at the referring facilities and were transported to our institution between program initiation, on October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2022. Results were presented as mean ± SD, median (min - max) or number (%). Results: Since program commencement, 305 patients were accepted for ECMO retrieval. Three hundred and three patients were placed on ECMO at the 47 referring hospitals among 5 states. In our study, 185 (61%) patients required veno-arterial ECMO and 115 (38%) were placed on veno-venous ECMO. Three patients (1%) were cannulated for veno-arteriovenous ECMO. Twenty patients were cannulated under cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Most of the patients were transported by ambulance (79%), 14% by helicopter, and 7% by airplane. Six out of the 303 patients did not leave the referring facility. All patients that left the referring hospitals arrived safely to our institution. No major complications occurred in route. Conclusion: Our study's findings indicate that non-CTS physicians can successfully cannulate and retrieve patients with a low complication profile.
